Knight Feat Build

[emoplato]

If getting a one-handed weapon with reach is what is wanted get a Spinning Sword from Secrets of Sarlona. Monkey Grip is one of the worst feats as it can be beat by Strongarm Bracers for a couple thousand gold. If 3.0 rules are used Savage Species had reach weapons of larger size categories above medium add another 5 ft of reach. The use of shields on arms as many here inferred got shafted because of the animated shield and buckler. Tower shields only really benefit divine casters to not provoke AoO's so the heavy shield is the way to go for sword and broad. Spikes and bashing enchantment up the damage by 3 size categories, obviously strongarm bracers adds another(1d4 to 3d6). Player's Handbook II did offer a couple of decent options. Shield ward, which was mentioned here before, applies the shield bonus to touch attacks and combat maneuvers checks. Agile Shield fighter is two-weapon fighting for sword and board except they are both one-handed weapons with a lesser attack penalty(PA both, not best but good). I would ask if the DM shield block can be used as Shield Specialization as making use of shields while building an offensive is feat intensive.
If the DM would allow homebrew I made a little prestige class using Incarnum to give a variety of options(including shields) to fighter characters without sacrificing much.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/328350-incarnum-blade-rehaul.html

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You could consider these feat chains:

1. Aberration Feat: Aberration Blood (LoM p178) + Aberration Feat: Inhuman Reach [adds +5 Reach] (LoM p 180)
2. Vile Feat: Willing Deformity (HoH p125) + Vile feat: Deformity [Tall] gives your PC the natural reach of a PC one size larger (HoH p 121)

Then you don't have to worry about whether your weapon has Reach.

 

[ImperatorK]

Then you don't have to worry about whether your weapon has Reach.

Except with those feats you only have reach of 10-15 ft., while with a reach weapon your normal reach is doubled. So if you have feats to spend you can take both them and a reach weapon for a whooping 20-30 ft. reach!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For a normal human, the Reach gained by taking either of the 2 feat chains will give a Standard Human 10' Reach. If he takes all 4' his Reach will be 15'.

RAW, a reach weapon will double the reach of a creature for whom the weapon is properly sized.* So, for a human, the polearm would add 5' Reach, for a total of 10'.

Taking both feat chains- using a Medium human as the base- and using a standard polearm, his reach would be 20'








* There is an ongoing debate as to whether an oversized weapon merely doubles the wielder's reach- he must choke up on it- or if it should be treated as doubling the reach of a standard wielder, thus granting even more reach to a creature using Powerful Build Or Monkey Grip to use an oversized reach weapon. Personally, I run reach weapons the latter way.

 

[ImperatorK]

Reach weapons double your reach, not just add +5 ft..

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Reach weapons double your reach, not just add +5 ft..

This confusion is why I hate the way the rule is worded. Instead of being clear and giving weapons specific sizes & lengths, 3Ed's designers got cute with their language and implied weapon lengths using vague sizing rules. (Some have lengths listed in their fluff, but not the tables.)

Reach weapons double the reach of an appropriately sized wielder. Thus, a standard M Human (Reach 5') wielding a Reach weapon made for M creatures will have his Reach doubled. The same weapon will not double the reach of a size L creature.

A human with the Vile and Aberrant feats to increase his personal reach is no longer a standard M Human (Reach 5'). His reach is now 15'. If he picks up a standard human sized spear (@ 6') which doubled the reach of his normal sized buddy, I said it would give him a Reach of 20'. It would have to stretch an additional 10'- tripling its length- to "double his reach" and give HIM Reach 30'.

Which is pure nonsense.

 

[ImperatorK]

Reach weapons double the reach of an appropriately sized wielder.

I don't see that part in the rules on Reach weapons. They say reach weapons double reach, and then give examples for the most common sizes: small, medium and large.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't see that part in the rules on Reach weapons. They say reach weapons double reach, and then give examples for the most common sizes: small, medium and large.

Again, this is because they got cute with language instead of simply assigning actual weapon sizes measured in feet. You have to look at a whole bunch of rules before it all comes together.

SRD

Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away

(emphasis mine)

And

A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

And this chart.

The base rules of the game are silent on oversized reach weapons since, by rule, the only way you could wield them are Powerful Build & Monkey Grip- both from later additions to the rules, or by being increased to appropriate size.

So we can see:

1) the rules assume a Medium sized human is 6' tall, on average.

2) A standard Reach weapon for a human is a 2 handed weapon which is the same size as a Medium creature. This means it is between 4'-8' long, on average. Let's call it 6'.

3) the language of the reach weapons rules include the language of "appropriate size" (which I bolded), albeit only (potentially confusingly) in regards to Large creatures. Some have taken this to mean hat the "appropriate size" language applies only to Large creatures. (Considering the game contemplated 9 size categories, claiming this rule only applies to size L creatures is tortured logic at best.)

So we have a "typical" 6' tall human with a standard 6' long, nonmagical polearm having his reach "doubled" to a reach total of 10'. It makes no sense, then, that the same polearm in the hands of a human whose personal reach has been increased to 15' would have his reach "doubled" to 30'.

They could have saved a lot of ink, pages of paper & confusion if the weapons charts simply had a weapon size expressed in feet & inches.

 

[ImperatorK]

(emphasis mine)

So?
Weapon size is only relevant when you talk about Light, One-handed and Two-handed. Reach is something else entirely.

It makes no sense

RAW is RAW. It doesn't have to make sense. By RAW it doesn't matter how long actually is a weapon. What matters is what size is it's intended wielder and what special abilities it has.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) Weapon size establishes the size of the weapon, and whether a weapon grants Reach is related to size- they are interrelated. As I pointed out, the example for the large creature expressly sates he only gets the advantage of a weapon's Reach if it is "of the appropriate size." And RAW, a medium sized polearm is at most 8' long. It cannot possibly add 15' to someone's reach.

2) while it is true in some ways that a game rule is an arbitrary construct and thus does not have to make sense, following such rules blindly and without analysis is not using your rational mind. A rule that has results at odds with what it is designed to simulate is worthy of reconsideration, interpretation, and ultimately revision.

If, by RAW, D&D's falling damage rules healed increasing amounts of damage (the farther you fell, the more you healed) instead of increasing damage dealt, would you still follow the RAW?